In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby liminalOyster » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:01 am

dada » Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:51 pm wrote:No, it's a primitive mindset. Commodities and possessions are just like totems and fetishes. Investing energy into objects. Material objects, objects of thought. Concepts of self, ego. It's superstitious thinking.


Investing energy into objects is "primitive" indeed. The sun, for instance, does it all day long.
"If you support factions that get big money backing, you are probably not a 'revolutionary'."
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Location: The Tropic of Fancy
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby dada » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:29 am

Not in the human way. Anthropomorphising the sun, 'attributing human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities,' would be an example of the kind of primitive thinking I'm talking about.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby liminalOyster » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:45 am

dada » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:29 am wrote:Not in the human way. Anthropomorphising the sun, 'attributing human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities,' would be an example of the kind of primitive thinking I'm talking about.


Are you saying that investment is solely a human practice?
"If you support factions that get big money backing, you are probably not a 'revolutionary'."
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Location: The Tropic of Fancy
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:09 pm

dada » Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:51 pm wrote:No, it's a primitive mindset. Commodities and possessions are just like totems and fetishes. Investing energy into objects. Material objects, objects of thought. Concepts of self, ego. It's superstitious thinking.


This makes the present capitalist system and the ideologies it engenders or at least reinforces and valorizes in individuals into the natural present-day product of these same long evolutionary drives that you are implying have never changed (commodity fetishism, totemism, greed, power-tripping). There was never an alternative. The capitalism of private gain with belief in infinite-growth markets is the long-term product of human nature and if we haven't overcome these primitive drives until now, it's pretty hopeless to think we can change them now. Tell me I'm wrong about the consequences of what you are saying. Bad consequences wouldn't mean it wasn't true, by the way. It would render this discussion (not just here but on the planetary scale) into pretty much a matter of observation of the inevitable, which may be a way of coping and keeping ourselves occupied and interested, but will have no consequence on the medium-term outcome of mass extinction and collapse of the civilization and its human population. Is that about right?

.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

Top Secret Wall St. Iraq? & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 13167
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby dada » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:37 pm

Are you saying that investment is solely a human practice?


Investment for profit, advantage, gain. There are other animals who do some forms of this, for example squirrel buries nuts, dog marks territory. By human time reckoning, the sun is a process occurring over billions of years in its main sequence stage, and trillions of years beyond that. Viewing the sun's radiation as a form of investment of energies into objects may be advantageous to humans, however 'objects' in terms of human conception are events that occur at an extremely small scale, as far as the duration of the sun is concerned.

Hang on Jack..
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby dada » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:40 pm

This makes the present capitalist system and the ideologies it engenders or at least reinforces and valorizes in individuals into the natural present-day product of these same long evolutionary drives that you are implying have never changed (commodity fetishism, totemism, greed, power-tripping). There was never an alternative. The capitalism of private gain with belief in infinite-growth markets is the long-term product of human nature and if we haven't overcome these primitive drives until now, it's pretty hopeless to think we can change them now. Tell me I'm wrong about the consequences of what you are saying.



I disagree, there has always been an alternative. "Primitive" is a mindset, occurred way back when, occurs now. The evolved mindset has been around for just as long, and is present and available.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby liminalOyster » Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:02 pm

dada » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:40 pm wrote:
This makes the present capitalist system and the ideologies it engenders or at least reinforces and valorizes in individuals into the natural present-day product of these same long evolutionary drives that you are implying have never changed (commodity fetishism, totemism, greed, power-tripping). There was never an alternative. The capitalism of private gain with belief in infinite-growth markets is the long-term product of human nature and if we haven't overcome these primitive drives until now, it's pretty hopeless to think we can change them now. Tell me I'm wrong about the consequences of what you are saying.



I disagree, there has always been an alternative. "Primitive" is a mindset, occurred way back when, occurs now. The evolved mindset has been around for just as long, and is present and available.


I'm struggling to get a handle on your use of that super charged term. I'm assuming you have a very clear (futurist, ironic?) intent in circling back to the 19th century and evolved vs primitive?

As far as investment, the two examples you give of animal behaviours have little to nothing to do with what I understand (in poly-Marxist) discussions of investment. Squirrels find a fraction of the nuts they bury. It's a huge labor loss for them to subsist at hardscrabble level. A strategy that reflects their fundamental organistic limitations. Dogs marking territory looks like capitalism, yes, but not investment. In fact, Im not even sure I understand it terribly well - do we even know that dogs are making singular "territorial" claims? Vs. shared space?

As per the sun, iI mentioned it only because of the basic negative characterization of putting energy into objects, as I read it, in your earlier comment.

But FWIW, even the examples you give - totems, fetishes, etc - it is pretty clear at this point that those concepts and categories are way biased to the view of late euro imperialism. Mana for instance, was always understood (poorly) back then as an analogue of electricity and general "vitality" that looked far more like the Euro idea of Prima Materia than anything else. Whereas Mana in Polynesia looks much more like a liminally human form of life which inhabits also-human societies.

Maybe Capitalism's most destructive effects have to do with a failure to include capitalism inside the realm of the sacred. Sure, I hate capitalism, but as it increasingly lacks a dimension of reverence for its own violence, it gets worse, really. I think the world would be a far better place if we (and *they*) simply accepted that we are ruled by evil sorcerers and their magick forbids abstension or exit except (maybe) through death.
"If you support factions that get big money backing, you are probably not a 'revolutionary'."
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Location: The Tropic of Fancy
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby dada » Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:57 pm

No, I wasn't using the terms primitive and evolved in that way. I do understand the conceptual triggering effect that words can have, but it isn't my intention to trigger previous conceptions. Stimulating thinking along new avenues, maybe making visible the contours of a different framework is the effect I've been working on. Whether or not I've been successful in doing this, I'm okay with that, either way. But that's the context within which my words should be taken. I work with the limitations presented to me, and I do the best I can.

I don't mean limitations in a bad sense, either. Limitations can function as a spur to creativity in acts like making art, I see no reason to think the same can't apply elsewhere.

I like this:

Squirrels find a fraction of the nuts they bury. It's a huge labor loss for them to subsist at hardscrabble level. A strategy that reflects their fundamental organistic limitations.


Looked at in a certain light, I think it says a lot about humans, as well as squirrels.

As well it reminds me of J Posadas suggestion that 'the speed of thought depends on the dominant material means.' But I'm not a Marxist, not that kind, anyway. I'd stand the Marxist on his head in this case, suggest the reverse is true. Although maybe that's what Posadas was getting at.

Again, suggesting that "the 'fundamental organistic limitations' may depend on the speed of thought" is just that. A suggestion. The Marxist is free to do backflips, if he feels so inclined.

But psychoanalyzing the dog is not something I feel inclined to participate in. And again, terms like investment, totems, and fetishes are not intended as conceptual triggers. I'm using them more like Jackie Chan uses whatever happens to be on hand in a fight scene. A chair, a curtain, an applecart, a chicken are just weapons in the fight scene. When the scene is over, these things resume their normal, socially sanctioned functions and roles. Demanding that the chicken is just a chicken doesn't stop Jackie, and it ain't gonna stop me.

Sacred capitalism, I don't know. Maybe everything is sacred, and nothing is sacred already. But I have to disagree with the statement "if we (and *they*) simply accepted that we are ruled by evil sorcerers and their magick forbids abstension or exit except (maybe) through death." I'm not arguing against it, I just don't play by your rules. They don't apply to me. In my opinion.

Anyway, at some point I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree. You too, Jack. So I'll back off, let you fine folks get on with what you're doing. I know it won't take anything away from my words, because there's nothing in them to take away.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby liminalOyster » Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:32 pm

dada » Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:57 pm wrote:No, I wasn't using the terms primitive and evolved in that way. I do understand the conceptual triggering effect that words can have, but it isn't my intention to trigger previous conceptions. Stimulating thinking along new avenues, maybe making visible the contours of a different framework is the effect I've been working on. Whether or not I've been successful in doing this, I'm okay with that, either way. But that's the context within which my words should be taken. I work with the limitations presented to me, and I do the best I can.

I don't mean limitations in a bad sense, either. Limitations can function as a spur to creativity in acts like making art, I see no reason to think the same can't apply elsewhere.

I like this:

Squirrels find a fraction of the nuts they bury. It's a huge labor loss for them to subsist at hardscrabble level. A strategy that reflects their fundamental organistic limitations.


Looked at in a certain light, I think it says a lot about humans, as well as squirrels.

As well it reminds me of J Posadas suggestion that 'the speed of thought depends on the dominant material means.' But I'm not a Marxist, not that kind, anyway. I'd stand the Marxist on his head in this case, suggest the reverse is true. Although maybe that's what Posadas was getting at.

Again, suggesting that "the 'fundamental organistic limitations' may depend on the speed of thought" is just that. A suggestion. The Marxist is free to do backflips, if he feels so inclined.

But psychoanalyzing the dog is not something I feel inclined to participate in. And again, terms like investment, totems, and fetishes are not intended as conceptual triggers. I'm using them more like Jackie Chan uses whatever happens to be on hand in a fight scene. A chair, a curtain, an applecart, a chicken are just weapons in the fight scene. When the scene is over, these things resume their normal, socially sanctioned functions and roles. Demanding that the chicken is just a chicken doesn't stop Jackie, and it ain't gonna stop me.

Sacred capitalism, I don't know. Maybe everything is sacred, and nothing is sacred already. But I have to disagree with the statement "if we (and *they*) simply accepted that we are ruled by evil sorcerers and their magick forbids abstension or exit except (maybe) through death." I'm not arguing against it, I just don't play by your rules. They don't apply to me. In my opinion.

Anyway, at some point I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree. You too, Jack. So I'll back off, let you fine folks get on with what you're doing. I know it won't take anything away from my words, because there's nothing in them to take away.


I perceive three points in what you write that I tend to associate with good capitalist practice: 1) being above the law ("rules don't apply"), 2) appropriation ("take what's at hand") without regard for the thing in its own right or to others, 3) and telling other people it's their problem, (ie language as a grounding for speaking to history becomes "conceptual triggers." )

I don't know though. Maybe it's a 5d performance of some sort. Maybe you are me in the future come back to tweak a thought or two or keep me hooked so I don't step outside right when that airplane engine falls on my doorstep.

Cheerio.

ps. edit becaue I noticed your offer to "back off" which I had missed before. Please don't! I thought we were just riffing? I like you and your writing so nothing personal, in the least.

Image
"If you support factions that get big money backing, you are probably not a 'revolutionary'."
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Location: The Tropic of Fancy
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby Sounder » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:06 am

liminaloyster wrote...
I don't know though. Maybe it's a 5d performance of some sort. Maybe you are me in the future come back to tweak a thought or two or keep me hooked so I don't step outside right when that airplane engine falls on my doorstep.


I liked dadas bit about commercialization being the pursuit of profit over integrity. The thread has developed well despite the loose beginning.

As to the conspiracy hypothesis that really matters? Some other day.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3654
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:09 pm

I also see no reason why you should back off, dada -- did you say something aggressive? Ultra-dumb? Nope. You hold your own, we're just having a philosophical and political discussion here. Now you'll dispute even that, and it goes on.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

Top Secret Wall St. Iraq? & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 13167
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby dada » Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:01 am

No, everything's good, Jack. I just said everything I needed to say on this subject at the moment. You see no reason why. This reminds me of a line, I can't remember from where; The angels find no path on which to strew flowers. The heretics, secretly spying, find nothing to see.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby liminalOyster » Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:10 am

Sounder » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:06 am wrote:the conspiracy hypothesis that really matters?


I thought it was pretty clear after all this time that the only one that matters is also the easiest to believe and most ridiculed:

there is a set of occult/hidden relationships between public and private institutions which follow a logic of association that is inverse to what is identified publically (Clinton asked Trump to run) and that its evidence passes increasingly before our eyes (see GQ May 2016) as psycho-normalization technique to neutralize the remainder (produced by above paradox) which cannot be hidden. IOW, the cabal illuminati doesn't exist but the code/langue does; the hidden hand of power is a fantasy but the hidden circulatory system which unites those organs is real.

Did I miss a memo?
"If you support factions that get big money backing, you are probably not a 'revolutionary'."
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Location: The Tropic of Fancy
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby Sounder » Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:15 pm

No, no, you got the memo. Mine might be more an expansion (or peculiar coloring) on the theme. The quoted sentence refers to a hypothesis that a wealthy element of society learned long ago that their position could be perpetuated if they could suppress enthusiasm, folks natural and direct connection to source.

This is partially accomplished by creating anxiety and then producing lolly pops and other transitional objects assuage the anxiety. Anything to lock the plebes into reactive mind response patterns.

But maybe there is no real long timer elite, (they do suffer from a bit of inbreeding risk), if so, the 'deep state' may be something more like an aggregate expression of societies unconscious programming.

See, the deep state simply needs new management.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3654
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: In The End, There's Only One Conspiracy That Matters

Postby liminalOyster » Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:54 pm

Sounder » Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:15 pm wrote:suppress enthusiasm, folks natural and direct connection to source.


Enthusiasm meaning ecstatic stuff? Like the ecstasy of election night 2008 as inevitable stopgap? And "direct communication to source" pretty much impying Gnostic?

I think there is an even simpler pneumonic to ask of average jane and joe: do you believe that institutional *relationships* are transparent? Most would hopefully say no. ( Though a good friend told me that FOIA works 100% of the time; it's just slow. )

And/or do you believe that we could look at events and outcomes and speculate (based on cui bono etc) as to what some of those relationships really are?

For some reason, the resistance is mostly to taking the second step.

Sidenote: I still think Wombat has done more effective parsing of this basic problem than anyone I know.
"If you support factions that get big money backing, you are probably not a 'revolutionary'."
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Location: The Tropic of Fancy
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests